Tuesday Links and Open Thread

86 thoughts on “Tuesday Links and Open Thread”

  1. What sort of idiot are you to argue that it’s suspect for current Fox employees to vouch for Ailes in the midst of a suit accusing him of heinous work-related behavior?

    Oh what ways can you great humanitarians and intellects restrict Ailes’ ability to defend himself against an accuser showcasing accusations from women from the 60s to 80s with motives that can also be questioned?

    Perhaps you can demand that he lay off any current employee with contemporaneous testimony, as related to Carlson’s tenure, of current workplace dynamics? Contest his right to an attorney?

    You are ever reasonable and considered.

    Not.

  2. I give the women who spoke up for Ailes a lot of credit. The easy thing to do would be to remain silent.

    • Some of them will stay silent. And people/media will ask why has so-and-so not vouched for Mr. Ailes.

      They’ll then make conjectures about these employees knowing something the others don’t know. They’ll speculate about their having experienced some sort of harassment from Ailes. They’ll argue that these people are particularly wise…educated…insightful…independent. That this is a silence that is deafening, etc.

      This is the yin and yang and the balance of such maneuverings.

    • Wrong. They all depend on Ailes for their paychecks and continued careers. Do you really believe Fox would put women out there who wouldn’t swear that he’s the male Mother Teresa?

      Even *if* he is guilty of sexually harassing Carlson, that doesn’t mean that he did the same to all the others, most of them, or even any of them. They may be speaking the 100% truth when it comes to their experience. But unless they were in the room during the meetings between him and Gretchen, they have no idea what did or did not happen.

      These women aren’t stupid (well, most of them aren’t). They know that their future depends on continued on-air time and that gushing over what a feminist saint he is will be met favorably when it’s time for contract negotiations. And they know that silence or criticism of him will guarantee a swift exit when it’s time to re-up.

      Any woman there who wants to remain employed will go out of her way to praise him now.

      • So you know Ailes has implicitly or explicitly coerced female employees into vouching for him on pain of losing their job AND you still argue that their support of him couldn’t speak to the overall workplace environment at Fox anyway because Ailes might not have gotten around to each of them yet.

        Well, that certainly covers every base but plausibility.

        • I never said nor implied any such thing. And I’m not going to get drawn into defending an asinine position that I never took. Point out where I said *any* such thing.

          It’s just common (or maybe not so common) sense that anyone who wants to stay in the boss’s good graces will come to his defense at a time like this.

          I also said that they may very well be speaking the truth, in that he never behaved improperly toward them. And that may be because he’s innocent, or for other reasons.

          If you’re not going to be honest, I’m not going to discuss anything with you.

          • If these women are defending Ailes because they believe their contracts won’t be renewed otherwise, then these “not stupid” women have gotten that message implicitly or explicitly from their boss.

            Which is it?

            Staying in the bosses “good graces” is not quite the same thing as not being in his crosshairs for canning. There’s a world of difference there and to argue otherwise isn’t commonsensical at all.

            As to your other bit that suggest that it’s irrevelant for employees to vouch for Ailes because they weren’t his targets, that’s nonsense too.

            They are addressing a climate that Carlson has described in her charges. To buffer that, Carlson’s attorneys have argued that this a pattern of the boss. That denotes a culture that current employees deny.

          • Or maybe they’re just assuming that publicly sticking up for the boss against admittedly awful accusations is a good way to stay on his (and the company’s) good side.

            Then try to look at this from the other side. What do you think would happen if a female on-air employee were to come out and publicly say that either he harassed her or she witnessed him doing it to someone else? Do you really believe she’d get to sub in for high profile hosts and anchors? How do you think her next contract negotiations would go? A woman who’d do that might very well get Tantarosed (taken off the air and salary paid out for the remainder of her contract while forbidding her from appearing on the air anywhere else until her contract is done).

            I cannot imagine that anybody who wants to keep her job would publicly speak out against the boss, or the environment.

          • I’m afraid it’s not common sense to argue that in the workplace female employees have one option: publicly vouch for the boss against a colleague or have their careers abridged in some way… because even their silence is taken as tacit support of the bosses’ accuser.

            Rather than that being a dynamic that any employee would “assume” to be in place, it is the essence of a hostile workplace environment and its is one that is forcefully communicated implicitly or explicitly by management.

            Is it not common sense for you to just assume that any of the ‘not stupid” women at Fox would tolerate, ignore, and bolster that sort of environment in any way.

          • When the boss is the one who decides if you’re going to continue getting a paycheck and have a career, I have to disagree with you. Vehemently.

            I have no idea how silence would be perceived — either as believing Carlson or just not wanting to get involved. But I’d bet anything that those who went public to defend him will fare much better in their careers at FNC than those who don’t say anything at all.

            I think it’s obvious that slots to be on the air are limited, so people are going to use whatever competitive advantage they have to get ahead. It’s truly a zero sum game.

          • Which is it? The employees who vouch for Ailes get their career advanced or the ones who don’t lose their pay checks (job)?

          • Could be both. Could be one or the other. Could also be neither. But in an atmosphere that’s known to be cutthroat, most people with some ambition and brains will come out strong for the boss. Because it’s human nature that when it comes time for contract negotiations or assigning an open spot on a show, the boss will likely look more favorably upon those who spoke out for him. And those who didn’t shouldn’t be surprised to find themselves will lesser offers (if any offer) on the next contract and not getting prime spots on the air.

            Would you reward someone who didn’t stand up for you? Especially over someone who did?

          • As an answer to the last question (because it’s the only thing you’ve written that hasn’t asked people to discount defending someone because we can assume it’s from self interest.)

            No, I wouldn’t take silence as being anything but a reticence to enter a public fray and the desire to not to comment upon something they might be ignorant about.

            I wouldn’t assume that employees defended anyone out of self interest, anymore that I assume anything about the motives of people who defend Carlson and/or accuse Ailes.

            To do either is merely biscuit throwing by people who have already closed their mind.

          • Let me add too that I’d renew the contract of anyone talented enough to make my shareholders money.

            That is in my self interest in staying in my job and in protecting my legacy.

          • What about Kiran Chetry? She parted FOX on bad terms & could’ve buried Roger Ailes but didn’t!

          • Do you remember why Kiran left on bad terms?

            She apparently wanted Gretchen fired so that she could be on F&F, and was told to take a hike. Not surprising that she’d stick it to Gretchen.

            I’d also be curious what ED and Paige would have to say. If they’d even want to get involved.

            http://pagesix.com/2007/02/17/top-agency-out-foxes-itself

            “TVNewser reports William Morris super-agent John Ferriter – who’d recently started representing Chetry, co-host of “Fox & Friends” weekend shows – told the network to fire Gretchen Carlson, co-anchor of the higher-rated weekday “Fox & Friends,” so Chetry could take her place.

            But the backstabbing request backfired on Thursday, when Fox executives fired off an angry letter to Ferriter saying they were terminating their contract with Chetry for the treachery.”

          • Not surprising Chetry would want to stick it Gretchen, huh? So you’ve got that all wrapped up too? it seems you’ve managed to cast some shade on every female defender of Ailes.

            Gretchen has been another matter. For any discrepancies or illogical behavior on her part we got the psychology of sexual harassment victims combined with the appeal to the authority of your own experience.

            Let me suggest that Chetry could be equally vengeful toward Ailes, and before you put her in the camp of one more female selling out for personal advancement, I’m fairly sure it would occur to Kiran that her chances of being hired by Fox in a display of quid pro quo would be slim. Her chances of of Ailes getting on the horn and helping her with a competition that would be only too glad to see him sidelined is unlikely too.

            Perhaps there really is someone in the world who truly is inclined to do what they consider to be the right thing.

          • I’m SO sorry that me having opinions that differ from yours seems to cause you such emotional distress that you feel compelled to be hostile and snotty toward me. I’ve got nothing further to say to you, since you apparently feel that I have no right to disagree with you

          • I’m not being hostile or snotty to you I’m addressing your line of argument and reasoning.

            You have every right to disagree with me and I’ll be more than happy to call your remarks as I see them.

          • No, you’re not just “addressing [my] like of argument and reasoning.” You’re being argumentative with me. Accusing me of saying ridiculous things, then expecting me to defend them, and *then* not being reputable enough to admit it when I called you out on that is hostile. And I’m not interested in having anything to do with you anymore. Go try to pick a fight elsewhere

          • If you want to characterize what you’ve said as being ridiculous so be it. You’ve gone from outright declaring that Ailes defenders would not have their contracts removed if they failed to defend him, to arguing that they’d suck up for more airtime, to talking about their sticking it to a former colleague merely to curry his good graces.

            What’s next? They sell-out for more sick days?

            I had thought of that as your simply moving the goalpost at every opportunity, now that you mention it, you have been ridiculous.

          • Again, you are being dishonest. I said it’s a possibility that those things could happen, not that it definitely would. So, now you’re stooping to personal insults? Not surprising, coming from you

          • No, you argued various possibilities as being logical assumptions later after being challenged.

            Your initial content was this declaration:

            “These women aren’t stupid (well, most of them aren’t). They know that their future depends on continued on-air time and that gushing over what a feminist saint he is will be met favorably when it’s time for contract negotiations. And they know that silence or criticism of him will guarantee a swift exit when it’s time to re-up.”

          • Go try to pick a fight elsewhere

            Excuse me? Cecelia has been posting here for a very long time. Only Johnny has the right to say something like that.

          • You’re excused. If someone is lying about me, personally attacking me (not my arguments), and obviously trying to bait me into fighting, I will tell that person that I’m not interested in fighting with her and to try elsewhere.

          • Oh, come on drama queen, read your own stuff. You weren’t misquoted or misrepresented. I addressed every goal post you moved — from your argument that it would be absolutely deadly for any FNC staffer to diss Ailes to the fact that speaking out in ignorance comes with its own great risk.

            Here’s another declaration you made:

            Wrong. They all depend on Ailes for their paychecks and continued careers. Do you really believe Fox would put women out there who wouldn’t swear that he’s the male Mother Teresa?

          • Thanks, but as one of the few people here to not hide behind a fake name and pic, I’m hardly a troll.

            That said, I’ve lurked here on and off for some time, and long ago got the impression that J$ is fair and reasonable. And considering I’m not the one lying about someone else, aggressively trying to provoke a fight, and hurling personal insults, I don’t see how I’ve been breaking any rules. Unless there’s a rule against disagreeing with a lifer

          • Cecelia didn’t lie, she quoted what you said. You were the one trying to argue both sides of the arguement.

            And, many here know my real name, if it’s any of your business.

          • Not true. She claimed that I said the women still working at Fox who came out in support of Ailes were coerced, among other things. She took things I said to extreme lengths, well beyond anything I wrote, and then tried to drag me into a fight to defend them. And since I’m the one who blocked her, not vice versa, I’m the one who’s not looking for a fight.

            I don’t care what your real name is. But even if many here know it, it’s not public. That’s your choice. And you weren’t the one I was talking about anyway

          • Btw you had no doubt about what silence might incur when you said this;

            These women aren’t stupid (well, most of them aren’t). They know that their future depends on continued on-air time and that gushing over what a feminist saint he is will be met favorably when it’s time for contract negotiations. And they know that silence or criticism of him will guarantee a swift exit when it’s time to re-up.

          • As I just commented, if you were in a position of power and had awful accusations leveled at you in public, would you be more inclined to reward those who stood up for you or those who kept quiet? When it’s time to drop someone, would you be more likely to drop the ones who spoke out on your behalf or those who chose not to?

  3. “It’s a sufficiently strong bond that O’Reilly will vouch for Trump’s honesty in spite of all the evidence that he’s a hardened liar. That’s a very, very good friend.”
    Urinate moan, urinate moan… rinse, repeat.

  4. Maddow, Matthews “The prime time coverage, which will begin at 7 p.m., will be led by Rachel Maddow, Brian Williams, and Chris Matthews.” I surmise this is a part of Williams penance.

  5. beware the dead cat bounce. advisers are pushing stock dogs this week. stocks that pay high dividends but not risen with the market, particularly MLPs. when the market goes back below s&p 2000 due to valuation correction, they are no longer dogs but correct and you get nothing but a dividend cut. example PAA up 7+% today after a .60 p/sh div cut. do a 3 year chart and see how crazy that is. keep your enemies and 401ks secure.

  6. Maddow and Matthews doing MSNBC convention coverage? Snore. Too bad Olbermann is gone. At least he was entertaining. Unintentionally, of course

  7. Politico — A.B. Stoddard, formerly of The Hill and ABC News, is joining Real Clear Politics as an associate editor and columnist.

    (And often SPECIAL REPORT panelist)

  8. The reason Joe Biden can be in two places at once is because half of nothing is still nothing.

  9. Today is AMAZON PRIME DAY. Nothing more glorious than buying crap you don’t need and feeling good about yourself because you got a good deal.

    • which is considerably better than Amazon having lots of hings you want and need but getting here requires shipping to Fla + Fla sales tax, reshipping international cost, importation tax, and if there is anything like vitamins, medicine, food products including spices, or even garden seeds going and obtaining and paying for a permit to import each individual item.

      • Darn, but you could get an EXPAT-PRIME membership fo $100,000 annually. Includes two day drone delivery at no extra charge. No refund if shot down.

  10. Well, Ailes critics can be relieved of their concern now…. Elizabeth Hasselbeck is not a current employee.

    I’m not sure why anyone would think that Fox talent couldn’t speak out against Ailes without losing their jobs in the first place.

    In fact, if any of them ever longed for a coup against Rogers Ailes, now is the time they could render a death blow to a king.

    Imagine if Catherine Herridge, Molly Henneberg, and Jaime Colby all spoke out against Ailes. They wouldn’t even have to say that he harassed them personally. They need only say that he fostered a climate in which women are treated in a sexist manner at the network.

    Would the company fire them or would they launch a pressured and highly public investigation into Ailes that would likely put him into retirement? Would there ever be a way in which they could punish them down the road without media scrutiny and without the EEOC perhaps becoming involved?

    I report. You decide.

  11. Today’s most popular links:
    5 Faulkner, Earhardt, MacCallum
    4 accusations are just sick
    3 scolds people
    2 Today’s O’Whine
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Guilfoyle: I’ve talked to 30 female colleagues at Fox; they all support Ailes.

  12. The new liberal litmus test is willingness to combat criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement. From the hosts of CBS THIS MORNING to Seth Myers Late Show, they are earning their chops by scorning the critics.

Comments are closed.